The Focus Of The Benghazi Committee And How It Should Be Run *Open Thread*

As I type, the Democrats are deciding just who they are going to put on the Benghazi Committee, if anyone. Apparently, they see their job not to represent the people who sent them to Washington, but to protect Obama and his Administration. There is something seriously wrong with that mindset regardless of which side of the aisle it is who acts in that manner. They are there to represent the PEOPLE, and guess what – the PEOPLE want to know what REALLY happened in Benghazi.

But no – the Democrats are playing games with this Committee, trying to decide if they will have just one person on it to defend Hillary Clinton when she is called to testify, or if they will fill their 5 seats. Their overall tone is one of petulance and dismissal, and frankly, their attitude is contemptible. At least in my opinion, but when you see my former representative, Jim Clyburn (thank heavens he no longer is), make comments like the following, you can see why I feel this way. From WaPo:

[…] A member of the Democratic leadership, Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, expressed his concerns about participating, saying, “if you’re going to have a hanging don’t ask me to bring the noose.” […] (Click here to read the rest.)

Are you kidding me with that? Clyburn can bite me – what an assholic thing to say. People died, Obama, Rice, Clinton, et al, LIED, and getting to the bottom of that is not a “hanging,” but finding out the truth and holding people accountable for their actions. I realize that is not a common action among many of the Democrats (otherwise, Rangel and a host of others would be in prison now), but for most of us, it is important. Especially since FOUR PEOPLE DIED, and many more were injured, in that attack for which NO ONE has been held responsible.

WOW. Told you it made me angry.

Anyway, there are a couple of very good articles about Benghazi and the Committee. The first one I want to highlight is an excellent post by The Klown at The Crawdad Hole, “The Seven Scandals of Benghazi” (h/t from a friend). The Klown makes a great case, and I encourage you to read it in its entirety.

The second one is by Charles Krauthammer who offers some instruction for the Benghazi Committee in his piece, “Benghazi: How to do the hearings right.” Krauthammer has some good instruction for the Republicans on how to conduct this committee

:[…] The areas of inquiry are obvious. They are three: before, during and after.

Before:

Where and to what extent was there dereliction of duty as memos, urgent pleas and mounting evidence of danger were ignored and the U.S. ambassador was allowed to enter a deathtrap?

During:

What happened during the eight hours of the Benghazi attack, at the end of which the last two Americans (of four) were killed by mortar fire? Where was the commander in chief and where was the responsible Cabinet secretary, Hillary Clinton? What did they do?

The White House acts as if these are, alternatively, either state secrets or of no importance.

So the White House is engaged in campaign damage control quite literally in the middle of the Benghazi events — at a time when Ambassador Chris Stevens is still missing and the final firefight that killed two other Americans is still three hours away. We’ve just learned that Obama was not in the Situation Room that night. Then where, doing what?

[…]

After:

We now know the White House was pushing the “video made them do it” coverup, lest the blame be placed on administration policy. Who was involved in that decision, obviously designed to protect a president campaigning that al-Qaeda was “on the run”?

What difference does it make? The difference between truth and falsehood. The difference between a brazen stonewall that is exposed and one that succeeds. […] (Click here to read the rest of this excellent piece.)

I hope the Republicans take Krauthammer’s suggestions, and I imagine with Rep. Gowdy at the helm of this committee, the focus will be like Joe Friday, “the facts, ma’am, just the facts.” No doubt, the Democrats will continue to try and politicize the hearings and the outcome, but let them. It says way more about them that they are willing to use four dead Americans as political fodder than a willingness to understand how this happened, why this happened, and who is accountable for what happened. Someone sure is, and someone is sure responsible for promoting that BS video story.

It sure would be nice to find out, once and for all, just who is responsible for making this a political matter rather than an American matter. Because THAT is ultimately what this is about: an American consulate, and an American ambassador, were attacked by a group of terrorists in a planned assault. Why were the Americans there? Why was there so little security available? What was going on with the CIA that they had so many people there? All these questions and more need to be answered, and if the Democrats don’t care enough to tell the families of the fallen how this happened, at least the Republicans will.

Again. She brushes it off again. Isn’t this the woman who, just the other day, retorted, “Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi,” as if it was some meaningless event? I have zero respect for her. Actually, it is worse than that. I have disdain for her, her lies, and her deplorable attitude.

the dems are really worried about the Benghazi mess. they are getting hysterical. think beckel, pelosi, reid all in a panic with the screaming and hollering. Look at the ugly coming out of the dems mouths and you know they are worried that the truth will come out

Can you believe this just ludicrous claim? Reid is insane. Seriously. He is clearly off his rocker to be so obsessed with the Koch Bros and to blame them for everything including GLOBAL WARMING. His other claim that they are the richest people in the world is just flat out wrong. He is truly crazy.

Absolutely – I think Gowdy will do a fantastic job as head of this committee. He wants facts, not emotions. He wants details, not some song and dance to protect Obama. I honestly cannot think of anyone I would rather have chair this committee than Gowdy.

I’ve heard Gowdy say several times that he wants people on the committee who can ask good questions. Meanwhile the Dems, if they do decide to participate, will be looking for grandstanders, obfuscaters and hyperbolic bloviaters. Should be hard to find those in the Democrat party.

Smart move having women involved – if they hadn’t we would have heard all about the “war on women” and how the GOP doesn’t let them play too.

Whoopee, not only do the girls get to play they are players! Susan Brooks is a former federal prosecuter and Martha Roby led a probe into the Benghazi attack as a subcommittee chairwoman on the House Armed Services Committee.

Good for Boehner – this shows he means business!

And I too am glad the Jim Jordon was included. He’s one of the good guys IMO.

Good news indeed abt the women on the committee. Having another former prosecutor in Brooks should bode well. And you are right – had Boehner not had any women on there, we definitely would have heard abt it in an attempt to discredit the work.

He really surprised me. I wonder if perhaps Trey Gowdy had a suggestion or two? Hmm? Just wondering because this is a very good group and I really didn’t think Boehner had it in him. If I am wrong I’m glad because there are enough crazies in leadership in D.C., see Pelosi, Nancy and Reid, Harry for starters.

I have to share something my contractor just sent me. It is abt Chelsea Clinton’s father in law. My contractor queried where the media is, but we all know. Oh, and I checked it – it is true. You can read the Snopes.com version here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/mezvinsky.asp

does anyone know who chairs the conference call in the AM to give the talking points to the dems when they are going on TV? they all say the same thing word for word. don’t you think they should mix it up a little bit to at least try and make it believable?

I knew those JournoListers didn’t go far…Yep, they are the same ones, led by Klein, who descended on Palin to make her look bad. She was a threat to The One, the way they saw it, so not only did they throw everything at Palin, they also held back some info people could have used abt who Obama was in 2008…